Posted on 04/27/2015 3:15:25 PM PDT by markomalley
The question mark’s in the headline because they haven’t commented yet on where the page went or why, but you can guess what happened if you read Jazz’s post yesterday. A GoFundMe page for a different Christian-owned business, Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon, was yanked down by GFM because there are discrimination charges pending against the owner and it’s GFM’s policy not to raise money “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.” Politely refusing to cater a gay wedding is, evidently, now a “heinous crime.” But that raised a question: If charity for Sweet Cakes was verboten, why wasn’t it also verboten for Barronelle Stutzman, the Christian florist from Washington who’s also facing discrimination charges for declining to provide the flowers for a longtime gay customer’s marriage ceremony? With help from Dana Loesch, the GoFundMe page for Stutzman had apparently already reached six figures. And now suddenly it’s gone, likely the next victim in GFM’s left-appeasing policy of treating discrimination allegations about a religious business owner’s objection to gay marriage as too heinous for a respectable business to tolerate.
I take it this is GFM’s way of atoning to liberals for sponsoring the fabulously successful donations drive for Memories Pizza, which reached nearly a cool million dollars before it ended. What happens, though, if the charges against Stutzman are dropped and she goes back to being merely a target of the left instead of a target of the state? Reinstating the page will irritate gay-rights activists; maintaining the suspension will alienate conservatives. Weird trap for a business to set for itself, especially since Samaritan’s Purse is already angling to fill this specialized niche in the market.
There’s a little bit of hope out there for some, but not all, Christian business owners, though:
Speech is speech! At least we have the settled for the moment, anyway, for this one case. The circuit court for Fayette County in Kentucky has ruled that the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission erred when it determined that a Christian T-shirt company discriminated when it refused to print shirts for a gay pride event.
In 2012 a Lexington, Kentucky, gay organization filed a complaint against Hands On Originals, a shirt company who wears its Christianity right on its site, if not on its sleeves (sorry, couldn’t resist). The organization asked for Hands On Originals to make shirts for their 2012 gay pride festival. The shirt company declined, because they didn’t support the message the group wanted printed. The group then accused the company of violating the county’s public accommodation laws, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
The response from Hands On was that they weren’t discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They were refusing to print a message with which they disagreed.
That’s the winning ticket. Turn this into a free-speech issue rather than a free-exercise issue and you’re more likely to win. The Supreme Court’s said before that laws of general applicability typically override an individual’s demand for an exemption on religious grounds, but judges are always leery of cases where the state tries to compel an individual to endorse a specific message. The tricky part for businesses like Sweet Cakes and Stutzman’s flower shop is that baking cakes and arranging flowers arguably aren’t a form of expressive activity, notwithstanding the creative element involved. Placing a message on a t-shirt is. Likewise, a Christian photographer may be on firmer ground than Stutzman insofar as choosing what to photograph and composing the shot are more widely regarded as a form of artistry, which courts might treat as expressive for First Amendment purposes. If you want Christian businesses to have a right of refusal on gay weddings, start thinking less in terms of faith and more in terms of speech.
Why is GoFundMe not just as guilty of bigotry as Sweet Cakes supposedly is? Aren’t they denying service on the basis of their beliefs?
So, all that needs to happen is just make an accusation against a Christian business owner.....and all help and assistance is denied to them.
This is going to blow up in someones’s faces but soon.
Yup. Big Big Lawsuit...
I think the left is trying to distract us in seven different directions.
The FOCUS is on getting Cruz in office. Fighting fifty separate battles we will lose. Must win the war.
He is only five behind hitlery. was 25 behind.
debates will cancel the rest out.
WE can do this!
then Obama’s sons will be put in place and religious liberty laws restored.
Well then, forget GoFundMe and just send the people checks or money orders.
Exactly ... it’s Christians that support more charity than anyone. GoF***Me is shooting themselves in the foot. They won’t exist next year this time.
How about www.Believerswillfundit.com?
We don't have to play their game, create our own, they won't be able to shut us down ;-)....
the other night tak show host Bill Cunningham was encouraging the Right to surrender the Social Issues and focus on the economics. He didn’t support RFA laws either.
Unfortunately the homonazis aren’t Libertarian they are Stalinists and surrendering to them won’t help the Right at all.
Back somewhere in my posting history I have posts putting forth the idea of assigning the proceeds of a homosexual wedding cake to promoting traditional marriage.
I now think that the idea may be subject to discrimination laws, because homosexual cakes are singled out. Don’t know, it’s a legal question, and I’m not an attorney.
The easy workaround, however, is to donate a fixed amount from all wedding cakes to those causes.
Here is to kicker; Encourage matching funds from non-business sources, friends, churches, customers for cakes of their choosing.
Business contributes $10 per cake (let’s say), others match it at 10:1, or some amount of their own choosing.
Post the proceeds of the different cakes prominently in the store.
Suddenly, thousands of dollars are raised, the community has an opportunity to be part of the put-down, and, as nearly as I can determine, no laws are broken.
Yes, they are discriminating based on religious beliefs- something that is clearly in violation of the constitution- however, they will get away with it because they FALSELY label what these businesses did as ‘heinous, hateful’ which is open to subjective interpretation
Diversity and non-judgementalism rule!
Except for people who don’t agree with liberals.
gofundme is are clearly cowards afraid of Christians ,ad they aren’t interested in equal treatment-
Reverend Graham has a fund for these folks, see previous thread, this is a duplicate.
so who have the brains to set it up ?
Yup. Sue the bastards.
Those of Christian heritage representing our founding fathers, and still represented as a huge plurality and majority in America have oddly become the lowest caste in America, especially if they are white.
Those of us that are WASPS that were once a foundation of America have outrageously been excluded from our own US Supreme Court. We have become the victims and the impoverished and the time has come to demand WTF is going on?
We have liberal usurpers that are working feverishly to kick out WASPS. Is it because they believe we are inferior? I’m a believer in appropriate and balanced representation in a democracy, and definitely not a believer of superiority by any group. Yet liberal elites that want more power, money and representation for their own clique attempt to make themselves superior.
The danger of these various “Go Fund Me” gimmicks is that they run a political and self serving agenda for themselves, and that they capture wealth that doesn’t belong to them, and that they shut down independent efforts to help those that were not anointed by the establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.